Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) and milestones are expert judgments made based on many formative assessments. Their validity is dependent on the number of assessments but attention is increasingly being paid to having a "fair" sample of observations equally distributed across residents and contexts. OSCEs provide such a consistent, fair sample of behavior assessed under controlled conditions but have mostly used been used to provide granular skills feedback. We explore how faculty judge the "entrustability" of residents based on observing OSCE cases and then how these entrustments relate to OSCE skills performance. METHODS: In an 11-case OSCE for primary care residents (n = 25; PGY1-3), SPs rated skills in communication (information gathering, relationship development, education/counseling), assessment, patient education (case-specific), physical exam, professionalism, treatment plan, patient satisfaction and patient activation. Summary scores were calculated as%items rated well done (vs not or partly done; internal consistency > .72). Faculty observers then judged how much supervision the resident would need in actual practice to handle the case: 1-requires direct supervision, 2-requires indirect supervision, 3-ready for unsupervised practice, or 4- can supervise others. Mean entrustment rating across cases was correlated with clinical skills. RESULTS: Mean entrustment =2.46 (SD .37), falling between requires indirect supervision and ready for unsupervised practice. On average, residents were judged to need direct supervision in .40 cases (SD .65), indirect supervision in 4.76 (SD 2.03), ready for unsupervised practice in 2.92 (SD 1.80), and able to supervise others in 1.07 cases (SD 1.15) with PGY1 residents needing direct and indirect supervision in more cases than PGY2 and 3 (p = .037). Associations between OSCE performance and faculty entrustment ranged from essentially zero (communication sub-domains of information gathering and education/counseling; case-specific patient education; patient satisfaction) to negative (communication sub-domain of relationship development r = -.25, p = .16; professionalism r = -.21, p = .22) to positive (case-specific assessment, r = .35, p = .07; physical exam r = .30, p = .13; treatment plan r = .40, p = .04; patient activation r = .51, p = .008). Associations between skills performance and entrustment ratings varied by case. CONCLUSIONS: OSCEs provide a valuable opportunity for faculty to make entrustment judgments based on observing the same, complete encounter across many trainees. Entrustment judgments appear to be capturing elements of competence related to but different from SP assessments of performance, including especially "bottom line" aspects of practice such as assessment, physical exam, treatment plans and patient activation. Interestingly, we consider patient activation skills to be an "educationally sensitive patient outcome" i because both teachable and associated with patient outcomes and our results support the importance of this skill set

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is essential for quality care. Understanding residents' level of competence is a critical first step to designing targeted curricula and workplace learning activities. In this needs assessment, we measured residents' IPC competence using specifically designed Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) cases and surveyed residents regarding training needs. METHODS: We developed three cases to capture IPC competence in the context of physician-nurse collaboration. A trained actor played the role of the nurse (Standardized Nurse - SN). The Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) framework was used to create a ten-item behaviorally anchored IPC performance checklist (scored on a three-point scale: done, partially done, well done) measuring four generic domains: values/ethics; roles/responsibilities; interprofessional communication; and teamwork. Specific skills required for each scenario were also assessed, including teamwork communication (SBAR and CUS) and patient-care-focused tasks. In addition to evaluating IPC skills, the SN assessed communication, history-taking and physical exam skills. IPC scores were computed as percent of items rated well done in each domain (Cronbach's alpha > 0.77). Analyses include item frequencies, comparison of mean domain scores, correlation between IPC and other skills, and content analysis of SN comments and resident training needs. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-eight residents (of 199 total) completed an IPC case and results are reported for the 162 who participated in our medical education research registry. IPC domain scores were: Roles/responsibilities mean = 37 % well done (SD 37 %); Values/ethics mean = 49 % (SD 40 %); Interprofessional communication mean = 27 % (SD 36 %); Teamwork mean = 47 % (SD 29 %). IPC was not significantly correlated with other core clinical skills. SNs' comments focused on respect and IPC as a distinct skill set. Residents described needs for greater clarification of roles and more workplace-based opportunities structured to support interprofessional education/learning. CONCLUSIONS: The IPC cases and competence checklist are a practical method for conducting needs assessments and evaluating IPC training/curriculum that provides rich and actionable data at both the individual and program levels.